[zeebe]

Hello, is there a program out there that replaces the copy part of OS X and makes it like the old OS 9 program called Speed Doubler???
Info Here:
Connectix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would LOVE it if Apple made smart copying part of OS X!!! Why is it not in there???

[Big Mac]

Perhaps because copying is as fast as it can be already.

[peeb]

The article you quote explains why it is not in there. The speed benefits from it arose from issues with the old code that have been fixed now.

[zeebe]

OK, I understand all of that, but OS X DOES NOT HAVE smart copying. If I drag a folder to be copied to an external drive, and the SAME folder is there, why does it not just copy what is NEW and not ask to REPLACE the whole folder???

[Big Mac]

Because the OS doesn't magically know what's new and what's old. To figure that out, the OS would have to read both files, compare the contents and then copy over the difference. Does that sound easier or faster to you? Perhaps there could be some way to accomplish such a thing on the filesystem level, but it wouldn't work on the OS level.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by zeebe 

OK, I understand all of that, but OS X DOES NOT HAVE smart copying. If I drag a folder to be copied to an external drive, and the SAME folder is there, why does it not just copy what is NEW and not ask to REPLACE the whole folder???

Because then one wouldn't be the COPY of the other. What you want to do is merging folders. OS X has no built in mean (with a GUI) to do this, but you can find several third party utilities for download. The following link is just one example from a quick Google search. I haven't tried this program, so I don't actually recommend it.

The Big Mean Folder Machine for Macintosh - Mac File Collection Splitting and Merging Utility

[zeebe]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Because the OS doesn't magically know what's new and what's old. To figure that out, the OS would have to read both files, compare the contents and then copy over the difference. Does that sound easier or faster to you? Perhaps there could be some way to accomplish such a thing on the filesystem level, but it wouldn't work on the OS level.

So let me get this straight. A company, not connected with Apple, could do this on an OBSOLETE system like OS 9 (this is what Speed Doubler would do, as well as other things), but APPLE CAN'T do this on a brand new OS like Leopard??? I mean, they have all of these fast ways of searching and indexing, couldn't they use this as a part of that?

[zeebe]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Because then one wouldn't be the COPY of the other. What you want to do is merging folders. OS X has no built in mean (with a GUI) to do this, but you can find several third party utilities for download. The following link is just one example from a quick Google search. I haven't tried this program, so I don't actually recommend it.

The Big Mean Folder Machine for Macintosh - Mac File Collection Splitting and Merging Utility

Why wouldn't it be a copy of the other folder??? I mean, if they are both the same folder, same name, have the same contents, and when you copy one over the other, it just replaces what is new, they are the same.

[peeb]

I think you are glossing over some of the finer points of this. You don't know without looking whether the contents are the same.

[zeebe]

I think you guys are making this out to be too hard then it really is. I take a folder with lets say 100,000 photos, from one drive to another. It copies that folder. Ten days later, I have added lets say, 15 photos to that folder. I take it to the same drive as above. Why can Mac OS X not copy JUST those 15 photos to the same folder instead of having to copy all 100,015 photos. Kind of like SYNCING those two folders together. Shouldn't this be possible. Like I said, a non-Apple company did this with OS 9 (I even think as far back as OS 7.5)!!! Why not in OS X?!?!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Because the OS doesn't magically know what's new and what's old. To figure that out, the OS would have to read both files, compare the contents and then copy over the difference. Does that sound easier or faster to you? Perhaps there could be some way to accomplish such a thing on the filesystem level, but it wouldn't work on the OS level.

Sure it could be done at the OS level, using a tool such as rsync.

However, there are many reasons why one would want to overwrite a folder rather than sync with it. Maybe folder syncing might be a nice OS feature, but it makes no sense to sync between two folders by dragging a folder into the same path (which will currently ask you if you want to overwrite this file)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by zeebe 

So let me get this straight. A company, not connected with Apple, could do this on an OBSOLETE system like OS 9 (this is what Speed Doubler would do, as well as other things), but APPLE CAN'T do this on a brand new OS like Leopard??? I mean, they have all of these fast ways of searching and indexing, couldn't they use this as a part of that?

rsync, it is your friend (and already included in OS X).

[dru]

http://nemesys2.dyndns.org:8080/File...zation_EN.html

Might help. I just found it. Even works with Leopard.

[zeebe]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

rsync, it is your friend (and already included in OS X).

OK, so how do I access rsync??

[zeebe]

Originally Posted by dru 

http://nemesys2.dyndns.org:8080/File...zation_EN.html

Might help. I just found it. Even works with Leopard.

Thanks for that link, looks interesting!!!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by zeebe 

OK, so how do I access rsync??

through your terminal:

rsync -av /path/to/source /path/to/destination

or if you wish to sync between directories between two machines (requires SSH be turned on on destination computer)

rsync -av /path/to/source username@machine:/path/to/destination

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by zeebe 

OK, so how do I access rsync??

Type man rsync into Terminal.

[besson3c]

zeebe: rsync is not some mickey mouse shareware app, it is a very robust Unix utility used on everything up to enterprise-class environments. We rsync over 4 terrabytes of data every night, in case you were wondering about its limitations and memory management.

[zeebe]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

zeebe: rsync is not some mickey mouse shareware app, it is a very robust Unix utility used on everything up to enterprise-class environments. We rsync over 4 terrabytes of data every night, in case you were wondering about its limitations and memory management.

OK, didn't think I made it out to be some Mickey Mouse shareware app, I just didn't know how to access it, sorry. I actually don't think what I want should be a shareware app at all, just part of the basic OS system that any brain dead user (like myself) should be able to use without knowing every terminal or unix code out there. Like I said, it was doable under OS 9, why not OS X?? It seems like a pretty basic request to me....

[peeb]

You could pretty easily write an automator script to do this if you need it a lot and don't want to use the terminal.

[monkeybrain]

You have two folders, one is a copy (No.2) of the other (No.1). You add files into Folder 1 and also want to copy them to the Folder 2 without the long process of copying everything again. How? You open Folder 1 and select all, then copy this selection into Folder 2. Finder will ask if you want to overwrite old files, you choose no and the Finder will only copy those new files you added. Isn't it this simple, or am I missing something here?

[zeebe]

OK, yes it CAN be that simple monkeybrain, but let's take it a step farther. I have two folders, one is a copy (#2) of the other (#1). In folder #1, I have other folders, and folders inside those folders. Now, if I add files to a bunch of folders which are nestled deep inside folder #1 and then want to back up the entire folder (#1), I would have to find everything new that I added and use your process. My idea, would be to just move folder #1 to where folder #2 is and when it comes up have the option to copy only new items over.

Another simple solution, would be to delete folder #2, then recopy folder #1 with the new stuff, but lets say #2 has over 5000 items, some of which are big, some are small, it can take a long time to delete that folder.

Again, to me, my idea is the simplest.

[Hal Itosis]

Originally Posted by zeebe 

I think you guys are making this out to be too hard then it really is. I take a folder with lets say 100,000 photos, from one drive to another. It copies that folder. Ten days later, I have added lets say, 15 photos to that folder. I take it to the same drive as above. Why can Mac OS X not copy JUST those 15 photos to the same folder instead of having to copy all 100,015 photos. Kind of like SYNCING those two folders together. Shouldn't this be possible. Like I said, a non-Apple company did this with OS 9 (I even think as far back as OS 7.5)!!! Why not in OS X?!?!

 
You're taking one particular [and rather idealistic] example and saying that the entire OS should
cater to that single scenario. Unfortunately... the real world **is** more complex than that.

What happens if the newer folder has less items than the older folder?

• (i.e., the user deleted some files, because they WANTED THEM DELETED).
  Does dragging the new source onto the old destination do the deletions?
  Or, does it leave the stuff the user wanted gone from his HD remaining?

What happens if the user has moved items around in the newer folder?

• Say the old folder originally had 100 text files, but the user decided to
  rearrange them... by using subfolders to create categories. Instead of
  100 text files at the top level, there are now 10 text files and 3 folders...
  with the remaining 90 text files distributed inside the 3 subfolders somewhere.
  Under the system you advocate... what would happen? (I think you'd wind up
  with 90 duplicated items).

What happens if the user has renamed items in the newer folder?

• Say the old folder had something called "smile" and the user renames it
  to "smile please". The system you use will wind up with both those items,
  identical in every way... except name.

What happens if the "newer" folder has older items than the old folder?

• (i.e., the user retrieved some backed-up files, because the new versions
  had errors, or lost some good stuff the user MEANT TO KEEP). Does dragging
  the new source (with the desired older versions) onto the old destination
  (with the unwanted newer versions) "restore" the older versions or retain
  the newer?

By keeping things simple, the basic Macintosh behavior is more easily
learned, understood and remembered by users (new and old). OTOH...
if one wants to "geek out" then one can use a specialized software app
(with whatever rules one prefers) to do complex synchronizations, etc.

The entire basis of the "smart copy" feature you advocate seems based on
the premise that only new or newer items will ever be encountered, and
other changes -- which occur in the real world everyday -- are ignored,
at the expense of lost information and/or wasted space.

--

FWIW, along with rsync... even simple tools like cp and cpio can also
be configured to do folder merging.

[besson3c]

Hal Itosis is right, there are a lot of parameters and options which drastically alter sync behavior, even from one local folder to another (leaving syncing to another machine out of the picture). One way or two way sync? Should files be deleted from either source? Are we syncing based on file size? Modification date? Both? What info should be preserved (time stamps, user/group info, etc.)? Should any files be unconditionally excluded from the sync? Should the sync overwrite files that exist? Should these syncs be scheduled? Should they sync files that aren't owned by the user (e.g. applications installed into /Applications)?

The thing is, in order to do this without being destructive you have to have a *really* good understanding as to what exactly you want here in regards to all of these choices. This creates several layers of complexity for users, and certainly a simple "sync" button that doesn't take into account these choices would be a very bad idea.

In order to really present these choices to the user in a meaningful way, a more robust interface is necessary, and clearly Apple felt that this was left to the hands of third party developers.

[zeebe]

Yes, Hal Itosis does make some good points, and I am willing to concede on this. Admins, please lock this thread.